Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor P. Kaidashev


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Consensus to keep, but please clean-up. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Igor P. Kaidashev

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is too little evidence that the subject of this BLP, which is written like a resume, passes general notability guidelines. See discussion at WP:Teahouse/Questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have a hard time reading the "article" due to a combination of poor English and the fact it is mostly lists of proper nouns ("name dropping" if you will). Not really sure how to determine notability under WP:NACADEMIC for a Ukrainian doctor, so no opinion on notability at this time.  All I can say is the article is pretty much useless as written.  Pinging  who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I go considerably by that national language encyclopedia for nation figures. . It is true that some national encyclopedias may be over influenced by local people, or over-accepting for certain types of articles. But here the question is judging whether the positions he has held are the leading professional positions in his field in his country, and I say they are President of the Ukrainian Immunological society is sufficient. As is characteristic of the successor states of the USSR, he also holds a number of related positions in related societies. Citation figures will be low for any Eastern European applied medical scientist, because ISI, Scopus, and even Google Scholar include very few of the relevant publishing venues, and in order to be included both the journal publishing the work and the one citing it must be included. We've had the paretic for WP:PROF of using an international standard for pure science, but for everything else we use a national standard. The equivalent positions in the US would qualify, and enWP covers the world.  DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article needs cleanup, but subject appears to pass notability as an academic.  Montanabw (talk)  07:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with Montanabw . VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.